IllustrationTREAD SEPARATION OF LOW MILEAGE CONTINENTAL TR 265/70/ 17 SUV TIRES- NO ACCIDENT OCCURED, PROBLEM NOTED BY FORD SERVICE DEPT DURING SERVICING. *AK
2003 Ford Expedition
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Expedition years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Ford Expedition are substantially higher than the model-year median of 155.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Expedition years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
960–25K
5325–50K
6950–75K
7175–100K
105100–150K
69150K+
463 reports with mileage · 152 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 127 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 104 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
57 crash reports36 fire reports39 injury reports
What owners actually said
615 reportsCONSUMER VEHICLE WAS T-BONE BY ANOTHER VEHICLE AT 40-45 MPH, ALL OCCUPANTS WAS RESTRAINED IN THEIR SEAT BELTS AND NO INJURY WAS REPORTED. THE IMPACT OCCURRED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUV ON THE PASSENGER SIDE. NONE OF THE SIDE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE BODY SHOP. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIF…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER VEHICLE WAS T-BONE BY ANOTHER VEHICLE AT 40-45 MPH, ALL OCCUPANTS WAS RESTRAINED IN THEIR SEAT BELTS AND NO INJURY WAS REPORTED. THE IMPACT OCCURRED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUV ON THE PASSENGER SIDE. NONE OF THE SIDE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE BODY SHOP. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED, BUT THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM HAD NOT BEEN DETERMINED AT HIS TIME. *JB
SINCE WE HAVE OWNED THIS 2003 EXPEDITION WE HAVE HAD THE WINDSHIELD REPLACED DUE TO NOISE AND LOOSE STRIPPING, THEN, THE CONTRACTING PERSON PUT IN THE WRONG YEARS WINDSHIELD. THE EMISSIONS CANISTER WAS CRACKED AND WAS REPLACED. THE MUFFLER WOULD POP AFTER TURNING OFF THE ENGINE, BUT COULDN'T BE FIXED UNTIL VERIFIED BY FORD. I…
Read full complaint
SINCE WE HAVE OWNED THIS 2003 EXPEDITION WE HAVE HAD THE WINDSHIELD REPLACED DUE TO NOISE AND LOOSE STRIPPING, THEN, THE CONTRACTING PERSON PUT IN THE WRONG YEARS WINDSHIELD. THE EMISSIONS CANISTER WAS CRACKED AND WAS REPLACED. THE MUFFLER WOULD POP AFTER TURNING OFF THE ENGINE, BUT COULDN'T BE FIXED UNTIL VERIFIED BY FORD. I WAITED FOR 3-4 HOURS ONE DAY WITH 3 CHILDREN WHILE THEY LET MY CAR RUN AND SHUT OFF. WE FINALLY CALLED AHEAD, AND HAD THEM WAIT OUTSIDE ON US UNTIL WE KILLED THE ENGINE TO HEAR IT POP. IT WAS A POOR MUFFLER WELD AND WAS REPAIRED. THE SIDE MOLDING RATTLED BADLY, AND WAS TERRIBLY FADED, AND THAT WAS REPLACED. THE DOOR GETS A LOT OF WIND NOISE , AND A WHISTLE IN THE WINDOW. THEY SAID WINDOW PASSED THE DOLLAR BILL TEST AND WAS FINE BUT IT STILL WHISTLES. THEY, PUT A CLEAR STRIP ALONG INSIDE OF DOOR TO HELP NOISE. IT DOESN'T. THEN ,THE REAR CONTINENTAL TIRE HAD SUCH HORRIBLE, UNEVEN WEAR, IT WAS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. BOUGHT NEW TIRES FOR $600. THEN REAR DIFFERENTIAL MALFUNCTIONED, AND WOULD MAKE A GRINDING ON TURNING LEFT OR RIGHT. THEY FIXED THAT IN MARCH 2005, AND IT JUST STARTED DOING IT AGAIN. NOW, THERE IS A STRANGE NOISE WHEN REVVING THE ENGINE TO DRIVE COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD. IT IS GOING IN TOMORROW FOR THE NOISE AND THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL. ON TOP OF ALL THE REPAIRS, WE HAVE HAD A SQUEAKY BRAKE ISSUE. ALSO, THEY HAVE SAID THEY WERE GOOD. THEY JUST GET A LOT OF BRAKE DUST, JUST SAND THEM. OUR SIDE WINDOWS SHIMMIES ALL THE TIME. ! I DID INVEST IN AN EXTENDED WARRANTY!. *AK
THE DOOR AJAR LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON. COULD CONTINUE TO GO AROUND THE VEHICLE OPENING AND SHUTTING THE DOORS AND THE LIGHT REMAINED ON. CONSUMER COULD NOT START THE VEHICLE SINCE THE LIGHT CAME ON, AND HAD TO GET A JUMP TO START IT.*AK
WHILE MAKING A STOP, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD AND REMAINED ON. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION NUMEROUS TIMES, BUT THE MECHANIC COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO STOP COMPLETELY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION, …
Read full complaint
WHILE MAKING A STOP, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD AND REMAINED ON. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION NUMEROUS TIMES, BUT THE MECHANIC COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO STOP COMPLETELY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION, AND THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE BRAKE ROTORS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *AK WHEN STOPPING, THE MOTOR STARTS SHAKING AND THE VEHICLE WOULD SHUT OFF. WHEN TURNING THE VEHICLE, IT WOULD NOT RESPOND UNTIL ATTEMPTING 2 OR 3 TIMES, THEN FINALLY A LOT OF SMOKE APPEARS. THE SUSPENSION APPEARED TO BE LOOSE AND ONE SENSOR ON THE WHEELS DID NOT RESPOND. *SC
2003 FORD EXPEDITION CAUGHT ON FIRE WHILE PARKED. *MR THE CONSUMER EXPRESSED A CONCERN ABOUT ANY RISK OR DANGER OF SUDDEN SHORT CIRCUITING, SPARKING, EXPLOSION OR FIRE WITH PARKING THIS VEHICLE, WHEN ONE DAY WHILE SITTING IN THEIR KITCHEN, THEY HEARD A LOUD RUMBLE EMANATING FROM THE REAR OF THE HOUSE WHEN THEY SAW THE FRONT …
Read full complaint
2003 FORD EXPEDITION CAUGHT ON FIRE WHILE PARKED. *MR THE CONSUMER EXPRESSED A CONCERN ABOUT ANY RISK OR DANGER OF SUDDEN SHORT CIRCUITING, SPARKING, EXPLOSION OR FIRE WITH PARKING THIS VEHICLE, WHEN ONE DAY WHILE SITTING IN THEIR KITCHEN, THEY HEARD A LOUD RUMBLE EMANATING FROM THE REAR OF THE HOUSE WHEN THEY SAW THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE ENGULFED IN FLAMES WITH THE HOOD BLOWN OFF. THE FIRE ALSO SPREAD TO THE CONSUMERS HOME CONSUMING MOST OF IT. *SC *JB
I OWN A 2000 FORD EXPEDITION AND IN 2003 AND NOW I HAVE HAD THE AIRBAG LIGHT ON BECAUSE THE AIRBAG HARNESS IS DEFECTIVE ON THE PASSENGERS SIDE. THE COST IS $390.00 TO REPAIR AND $70.00 TO DO A DIAGNOSTIC TEST EACH TIME.*AK
WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH FUSE ON THE PASSENGER'S SIDE CAUGHT ON FIRE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DISCONNECTED THE BATTERY, AND THE FLAMES BEGAN TO SETTLE. *AK
#1 NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY #2 CAR HAD BE PARKED FOR ALMOST AN HOUR WHEN A PASSERBY KNOCKED ON THE DOOR TO SAY THAT THE CAR WAS ON FIRE AND SHE HAD ALREADY CALLED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. #3 FIRE WAS PUT OUT. CAR WAS A TOTAL LOSS. ALSO, THE CAR PARKED IN FRONT OF MINE WAS BURNED WHEN THE FIRE SPREAD AND THAT CAR WAS TOTALL…
Read full complaint
#1 NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY #2 CAR HAD BE PARKED FOR ALMOST AN HOUR WHEN A PASSERBY KNOCKED ON THE DOOR TO SAY THAT THE CAR WAS ON FIRE AND SHE HAD ALREADY CALLED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. #3 FIRE WAS PUT OUT. CAR WAS A TOTAL LOSS. ALSO, THE CAR PARKED IN FRONT OF MINE WAS BURNED WHEN THE FIRE SPREAD AND THAT CAR WAS TOTALLED AS WELL. IT BELONGED TO MY FRIEND, OLIVIA JACKSON OKE, WHOM I WAS VISITING AND MY CAR WAS PARKED DIRECTLY BEHIND HERS IN HER DRIVEWAY. I FILED A CLAIM WITH MY INSURANCE AND SO DID OLIVIA.
ON MARCH 11, 2004 I WAS DRIVING MY EXPEDITION ON THE I-95 DURING RUSH HOUR WHEN I NOTICED THAT CAR BEGAN TO FEEL VERY HEAVY. I ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SPEEDOMETER WAS GOING DOWN FROM 65 MPH TO 45 MPH DESPITE FACT THAT I WAS PRESSING DOWN THE GAS PEDAL, AND SUDDENLY ALL OF THE ENGINE LIGHTS TURNED ON. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER ON T…
Read full complaint
ON MARCH 11, 2004 I WAS DRIVING MY EXPEDITION ON THE I-95 DURING RUSH HOUR WHEN I NOTICED THAT CAR BEGAN TO FEEL VERY HEAVY. I ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SPEEDOMETER WAS GOING DOWN FROM 65 MPH TO 45 MPH DESPITE FACT THAT I WAS PRESSING DOWN THE GAS PEDAL, AND SUDDENLY ALL OF THE ENGINE LIGHTS TURNED ON. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER ON THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY WITHOUT ANY INCIDENT. I WAITED FOR A FEW MINUTES AND THE CAR RESTARTED WITH NO PROBLEM. *AK
Official recalls
103V094000 · Structure
Mar 7, 2003
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK, VAN, AND MINI VAN CONVERSIONS EQUIPPED WITH SOUTHERN COMFORT BUILT RUNNING BOARDS THAT CONTAIN CERTAIN COURTESY LIGHTS MANUFACTURED BY AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS, INC. THESE UNITS CONTAIN A COURTESY LIGHT OR LIGHTS THAT MIGHT OVERHEAT WHEN THE WIRE HARNESS IS EXPOSED TO EXCESSIVE MOISTURE AND ROAD SALT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS OVERHEATING CONDITION CAN CAUSE THE RUNNING BOARD TO MELT OR CAUSE A FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE WIRING HARNESS ON THESE RUNNING BOARDS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MARCH 7, 2003. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT SOUTHERN COMFORT AT 1-800-745-6096.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
1DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.